Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Claudia Tanase

Carlton Entertainment Group

Representatives

Self-represented

McCann FitzGerald Solicitors

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000

CA-00070035-001

17/03/2025

The complainant is a member of the Roma community.  On October 2nd 2024, at around 17.00, she went to the respondent’s casino on O’Connell Street in Dublin, but she wasn’t allowed in. 

On October 27th 2024, the complainant submitted an ES1 form to the respondent, claiming that she was discriminated against when she was refused entry to the casino on October 2nd.  On the ES1 form, she said that she went to the casino to see if her partner was inside.  She said that the security guard would not allow her to enter because of the way she was dressed.  She said that the security guard called the manager who agreed with the security guard that she shouldn’t be allowed in.  She said that she felt discriminated against and humiliated, and that people were pointing at her because of her traditional clothing of a long skirt and a scarf.

On December 18th 2024, on behalf of the respondent, Mr David McCauley of McCann Fitzgerald Solicitors sent a reply to the ES1 form.  The respondent denied the allegation of discrimination.  Mr McCauley said that admission will be refused where the reason for entry is other than for business or using the services of the casino.  He said that the respondent does not discriminate against service-users on the basis of race or ethnicity.  He said that the casino has a diverse range of clientele and has never been the subject of a complaint of discrimination.  They have many Roma patrons and welcome all communities.  The right of admission is reserved and there is a sign in the premises to this effect.  Mr McCauley said that the reason for refusing admission to the complainant was entirely unrelated to her race.

In her evidence at the hearing, the complainant said that the went to the casino to see her husband and to play on the gambling machines.  She said that the security man questioned her at the door and she showed him her money that she wanted to use to play on the machines.  She said that she was told that she wasn’t allowed in “because of my clothes.”  She said that she showed the manager her ID to indicate that she was over 18, but he refused to let her in.  She said that people were looking at her and she felt ashamed.

In response to questions from Mr McCauley, the complainant said that she went to the casino to look for her husband and to play.  She said that she had never been there before.  She said that she knows that people are not allowed in if they’re not there to play and she said that it’s not true that she didn’t want to play.

The complainant agreed with Mr McCauley that there was someone waiting outside the premises for her.  She said that this person was her aunt.

The general manager of the casino, Mr Pat O’Halloran, gave evidence for the respondent.  Mr O’Halloran said that, on the day in question, he got a call from the security guard at the entrance who told him about a lady at the door who wanted to come in to find her husband.  Mr O’Halloran said that the security guard told him that he didn’t allow the lady to come in.  Mr O’Halloran said that he looked at the CCTV of the front door and he observed the complainant and another lady outside, who had a child with her.  He said that he had a very short conversation with the security guard and he agreed that he had taken the correct action.

Although the complainant claims that she wasn’t allowed entry to the casino because of her clothing, Mr O’Halloran said that the security guard made no mention of how she was dressed. 

Mr O’Halloran said that customers want to use the casino in privacy and that people who are not there to use the services are not permitted to enter.  He said that they have a very strict entrance policy and people can’t come into the premises to use the toilet, for example, or if they are inebriated or violent.  He said that the highest labour cost in the business is for security staff, who are trained in non-discriminatory treatment of customers.

Mr O’Halloran said that 85% of the casino’s customers are not Irish.  They regularly have celebratory days for various nationalities and last year they had a Romania Day.  He said that 90% of the staff are not Irish, and four employees are Romanian. 

Mr O’Halloran agreed with Mr McCauley that people are turned away from the premises daily.  Some are barred, and some are self-barred and there are a variety of reasons why a person may be denied entry.

In response to a question from the complainant about why other members of the Roma community were allowed into the casino, Mr O’Halloran said that the security guard didn’t think that she was there to do business.  The complainant said that the security guard could have waited to see if she was going to play.  Mr O’Halloran said that there was never any mention of her having the intention of using the premises to play the machines.

Concluding the respondent’s submission, Mr McCauley said that the respondent does not discriminate against service users based on their race or ethnicity.  They have a diverse clientele, including Roma patrons and they are an equal opportunities service.  The security staff are trained and hold security licences. 

The respondent’s case is that the complainant was refused entry to the casino because she was not a service-user.  Mr McCauley submitted that, on the basic facts, the complainant has failed to establish that she was discriminated against.

The Legal Framework

Discrimination is defined at section 3 of the Equal Status Act (“the Act”) as follows:

(1) For the purposes of this Act discrimination shall be taken to occur -

(a) where a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) or, if appropriate, subsection (3B), (in this Act referred to as the ‘discriminatory grounds’) which -

(i) exists,

(ii) existed but no longer exists,

(iii) may exist in the future, or

(iv) is imputed to the person concerned,

(b) where a person who is associated with another person - 

(i) is treated, by virtue of that association, less favourably than a person who is not so associated is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation, and 

(ii) similar treatment of that other person on any of the discriminatory grounds would, by virtue of paragraph (a), constitute discrimination, or

(c) where an apparently neutral provision would put a person referred to in any paragraph of section 3(2) at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons, unless the provision is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary. 

Subsection (2) sets out the discriminatory grounds, one of which, at subsection (2)(h) is  

(h) that they are of different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins (the “ground of race”)[.]

In accordance with the objectives of the Act, the public has a right to access the services of the respondent’s casino without being discriminated against on any ground.  Section 5(1) addresses this right:

A person shall not discriminate in the disposing of goods to the public generally or to a section of the public, or in providing a service, whether the disposal or provision is for a consideration or otherwise and whether the service can be availed of only by a section of the public.

My task here is to consider the decision of the respondent’s security guard to prevent the complainant, a member of the Roma community from entering the casino, and, to decide if, on the basic facts, a presumption of discrimination can be shown.

The Evidence

From the evidence of both parties at the hearing of this complaint, the undisputed facts are as that the complainant is a member of the Roma community and, when she tried to enter the respondent’s casino on October 2nd 2024, she was denied entry.

There is a dispute about the reason the complainant went to the casino on October 2nd.  On the statement on her ES1 form on October 27th 2024, she said that she went there to see if her partner was inside.  At the hearing on October 13th 2025, she said that she also wanted to play on the machines.  The complainant had never been in the casino before and, when she tried to gain entry on October 2nd 2024, her aunt was waiting outside with a child.  It seems to me to be to be unlikely that she would go into the casino and leave her aunt waiting for her while she played the machines.   I am satisfied therefore that the reason for her visit was to locate her husband and I find that the statement in her ES1 form is more correct than the evidence she gave at the hearing.

Findings

From my assessment of the evidence presented by both parties, I am satisfied that the reason the security guard did not permit the complainant to enter the casino is because she wasn’t there to use the services.  The majority of the respondent’s customers are not Irish and many are from the Roma community.  The complainant said that her husband was in the casino at the time she tried to gain entry, which indicates that the respondent does not discriminate against members of the Roma community. 

I find that the basic facts presented by the complainant do not lead to a presumption that she was discriminated against.  For this reason, the burden of proving that discrimination has not occurred does not shift to the respondent.

Based on the facts and the evidence presented by both parties at the hearing, I have decided that this complaint is not well founded.

Discrimination, race ground